Tag Archives: journalists

BOLLYWOOD, CRICKET & loc

Copyright@shravancharitymission

By Kamlesh Tripathi

indian-jawan

    At times it appears the Indian Army Jawan, who fights terrorism at the Line of Control is only fighting to save his own house, but in reality he is fighting for all of us. But the tragedy with Indians is that they show no solidarity with him. Our Prime Minister preaches so much about terrorism in all international forums. But back home India is a divided and selfish lot. People from all professions are only self-centered about themselves and their professions. We don’t realise by behaving in this insensitive manner tomorrow, people may desist from fighting for the country. What will happen then? There is indeed a greater need to feel for our brave jawans and we must perennially keep their morale high. Colonel Anil Chawla puts it quite beautifully.

…………………………………..

Col Anil Chawla, a serving soldier of the INDIAN ARMY wrote this:

Will sending Pakistani artists back, stopping cricket and business with Pakistan actually end terror from Pakistan?

No, it most certainly will not.

BUT there is an emotion called solidarity.

YOU CANNOT MAKE FILMS, PLAY CRICKET, AND DO BUSINESS AS IF EVERYTHING IS FINE, BECAUSE IT IS NOT.

indian-jawan-3indian-jawan2

It makes the soldier wonder aloud, “Why should I alone bear the weight of conflict?”

This conflict between India and Pakistan is not the soldier’s personal war. He is dying and killing for you and me. Imagine a situation in which the soldier felt, and behaved, like Salman Khan, Karan Johar and Mahesh Bhatt? Imagine if a soldier walked up to his superior and said, “Sir, while I am dying on the Line of Control, these people are going about as if everything is absolutely fine between the two countries.”

Why should he alone sacrifice for India, when others were making merry?

Patriotism and sacrifice is not the sole responsibility of the soldier.

The United States boycotted the Moscow Olympics in 1980, and the Russians did likewise when they boycotted the Los Angeles Olympics in 1984. This is what happens when national interest is held paramount. And this is what must happen now.

18 families have been shattered like glass … But the pain of Fawad Khan’s departure is too much to bear, it seems …”

…………………………………

    Film Stars have nothing to do with terrorism…

    Singers have nothing to do with terrorism ….

    Writers have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Directors have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Performers have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Journalists have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Activists have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Cricketers have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Politicians have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Businessmen have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Professionals have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Lawyers have nothing to do with terrorism …

    Then for whom are the Jawans sacrificing their lives for?

    Jai Hind.

*****

#PRIME #TIME #TV #DEBATES-Keep hearing the #speaker but watch the eye-movements, facial expressions of others in the #panel to get a better sense

Copyright@shravancharitymission

Kamlesh Tripathi

tv8tv2

Of late participants in prime time TV debates have increased. All put together they go right up to eight on the screen, and some more join for special effects either at the studio, or any other location. Anticipating the hot intensity of the ensuing debate. I often find participants with parched throats. Some sipping water, which I wouldn’t dare to call it Vodka. In many ways Prime Time TV debates have replaced entertainment channels. As every individual is now eager to understand what is going on in the country. Also, news for many has become entertainment. Where, these debates are better understood both by literates and even the illiterates, unlike newspapers and magazines.

In the recent, prime time TV debates have become more cut throat, because many political parties are competing in the same political space, and have therefore become a multiparty affair. In any debate we now find time 3-4 party spokespersons. Most prime time debates start around 9 pm when office goers return from office after a hectic day’s of work, is when they want to analyse and know what all has gone right and what all has gone wrong in the country.

And, how cleverly or daringly their elected representatives from Karnataka and Telangana are hoodwinking the voters by going on a foreign junket. To how shrewdly BJP government is keeping the TRAI discussion paper alive, because Modi has to return election favours to Corporates. Or how Congress’s Anand Sharma in his own arrogant manner is spiking Prime Minister Narendra Modi, because he said something awkward in Canada about the country, but preferred to remain quiet when the scams were being committed by Congress under his own UPA regime. As if that didn’t spoil the country’s reputation. Or how PDP is kowtowing with separatists and how deeply is Mamta Banerjee involved in Sarada Chit scam and how J Jayalalita’s case on disproportionate asset is progressing. Or how Srinivasan is fighting his BCCI battle. The list goes on and on and on.

But the debate becomes daggers drawn when one spokesperson of a party criticizes the party supremo of another party, such as Narendra Modi, Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi, Mulayam Singh, Akhilesh Yadav, Mamta Banerjee or for that matter any party’s top boss. The defending spokesperson as if goes into a tizzy and loses his cool as if they are about to lose their jobs and are being monitored by party bosses, debate to debate and channel to channel.

So, in all of this. There is but another way of viewing these TV debates, which I find is more gauging, engaging, absorbing, interesting and even revealing on a lighter note. And, that is when the anchor or a panel participant, like a party spokesperson or a journalist or even a lawyer or anyone else is making a point, don’t concentrate on that person visually. Just keep hearing him and look in the eye of the person he or she is attacking, and also take a quick glance at others in the panel, and you’ll find the debate to be much more interesting and revealing. For example, let’s take one prime TV channel ‘Timesnow.’

Where, when, Arnab Goswami anchor of ‘Timesnow’ taunts on, Azam Khan’s buffaloes getting lost and police personnel being suspended. One should notice the taut and staring expression of Gaurav Bhatia, spokesperson of Samajwadi Party. As if wanting to say, ‘if stares could kill Arnab you would have been dead by now.’ And in the adjacent box Sanjay Jha of Congress with a smug on his face and in extreme silence and patience as if is willfully intending to say, ‘That’s a good one Arnab.’ And Sambit Patra in a fizz and gulping down, ’Arrey maza aa gaya.’

Yesterday, when Narsimha Rao, the BJP spokesperson was being cornered by Arnab for likely six fold increase in mobile NET tariff by corporates. I was watching AAP spokesperson Somnath Bharti whose expression, as if said, ‘Dear Arnab you have made AAPs job easier.’

And, in several land bill debates. The expression and eye movements of many Congress spokespersons only said, ‘Thank you Modi ji, you have once again made us relevant and greater thanks to Arnab for getting us to limelight.’

But, there is a converse also. With Nepal tragedy, did AAP get off the hook on the tragic death of Gajendra Singh. Perhaps, Arnab will have to invite Kejriwal or Ashutosh or Raghav of AAP along with spokespersons of other parties and some journalists and lawyers for the viewers to gauge and find it out.

*****